Worst RB in the HOF (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

On the first question:

I think Harris/Csonka/Riggins are clearly the worst three modern RBs in the HOF. They're all eerily similar, too. Big, bruising power backs that won SB MVPs. They're all 6-2-6'3, and played in the 230-245 range. Most known for their playoff success, none of them put up regular season performances like the other backs in the HOF.

Allen is clearly a level above them, IMO, but I wanted to provide him because I know some feel he was overrated. I don't think Sayers belongs on this list at all, and he's clearly a level above Allen, IMO. But I suppose the short length plus lack of team success (zero playoff appearances) could sway those who weigh those kinds of things heavily. Dorsett is on there because of his high number of fumbles, having only one big rushing season, and not being as dominant a playoff performer as the big 3. I think he's generally overrated but not the worst.

I'm also interested in your thoughts. As I said I've got the three brusiers on the lowest tier, but I'm not really sure how to separate them. Riggins clearly had the most dominant one season, Harris probably was the best playoff performer overall, but Csonka seemed (and this may be where I'm wrong) to be the most valuable player on those great Dolphins teams and had the best single season playoff performance ('73). I'd probably go 1. Harris, 2. Riggins, 3. Csonka, but it's really close.

On the second question:

Quite simply, which ones would you remove? Check all that apply.

I've got a third question, which I decided not to make a poll. Can you defend the enshrinement of Paul Hornung in the HOF? I didn't want to make this a poll question because I'm more interested in commentary. I understand he set the NFL record with points scored in a single season, but that was only because he was a kicker. I get that he had big playoff games, but his regular season performance -- even in the context of his era -- was just underwhelming. He was so clearly inferior to Jim Taylor and Jim Brown and he had only three quality seasons (and those seasons were far from great). I realize I'm setting myself up for a bunch of pro-Hornung arguments, but do you think he's a deserving member? He's so obviously inferior to the modern RBs that I made the cutoff 1960 to specifically avoid having him get every vote.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I voted for Riggins in both. I thought he was pretty overrated. Csonka and Harris are close behind him, so to speak, but I think they did enough to stay in.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I have always maintained that that the HOF is about more than numbers, it is about telling th estory of Football. Sayers was a great back who's impact was shortened by injury, but his impact went beyond mere numbers. His story, his intertwinement with the story of Brian Piccolo, his import on integration of the game is an essential story. The grace and class he demonstrated was transcendant. that is why he is in the HOF. Hornung is another. His story is a good one. His impact went beyond numbers. His story is entwined with the Story of Lombardi and involves the resurrection of a once great yet moribund franchise. His is, in many ways, the Story of Broadway Joe, but before Broadway Joe, and played out in the smallest market around. Also, he was better at his position than Namath was at his.

Numbers are so effected by era, number of games played in season in ers, style of play and rules, changes in medical care that one cannot fairly look only to numbers. If one does they miss the import of players to their team and to the game.

In this regard how is Jerry Kramer not in the HOF. This was a great player, instumental in all the Packers accomplished in the 60's, and through his retelling of those stories in his books an ongoing credit to the game. He has also been highly instrumental in advocating for the players of his era with the current union. The key to the Packer sweep, the man who carried Lombardi off the field in the Superbowl, the man who carried Lomardi to his grave and who has conducted himself with great class after the game giving greater credit to the game should be in the HOF.

 

[zed2283]

Wow.

First, I don't see how so many people can knock Franco. He was a huge part of the Steelers' success in the 70's and regarded as one of the best RB's of his time.

Same for Hornung; you've got to be kidding.

I'll admit that I didn't really start watching football religiously until about '82, so I didn't really watch much of any of these guys in their heyday. But I do consider myself somewhat of an NFL historian (i.e. NFL Films junkie) and I don't think that stats tell the whole story.

ETA: Ditto on Kramer. By all accounts he deserves to be there.

 

[Despyzer]

I think Harris/Csonka/Riggins are clearly the worst three modern RBs in the HOF.

Before I even read your commentary, this was my thought as well. Harris at least persevered enough to have held the all-time rushing mark for a little while though. That alone is worthy of enshrinement in my book.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I think Harris/Csonka/Riggins are clearly the worst three modern RBs in the HOF.

Before I even read your commentary, this was my thought as well. Harris at least persevered enough to have held the all-time rushing mark for a little while though. That alone is worthy of enshrinement in my book.

:X

 

[Despyzer]

I think Harris/Csonka/Riggins are clearly the worst three modern RBs in the HOF.

Before I even read your commentary, this was my thought as well. Harris at least persevered enough to have held the all-time rushing mark for a little while though. That alone is worthy of enshrinement in my book.

He had it for a little while before Sweetness... unless my memory is severely distorted.

 

[zed2283]

I think Harris/Csonka/Riggins are clearly the worst three modern RBs in the HOF.

Before I even read your commentary, this was my thought as well. Harris at least persevered enough to have held the all-time rushing mark for a little while though. That alone is worthy of enshrinement in my book.

He had it for a little while before Sweetness... unless my memory is severely distorted.

No, Harris never held the record. He was approaching it, and there was a whole hubbub about Jim Brown coming out of retirement to defend his crown. But Harris never broke it. That was when he went to Seattle and pretty much fizzled out.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I think Harris/Csonka/Riggins are clearly the worst three modern RBs in the HOF.

Before I even read your commentary, this was my thought as well. Harris at least persevered enough to have held the all-time rushing mark for a little while though. That alone is worthy of enshrinement in my book.

He had it for a little while before Sweetness... unless my memory is severely distorted.

Severly distorted.I just took a look and he got real close (Brown 12,312 / Harris 12,120) but didn't break it.

 

[Despyzer]

Okay. Good enough. I was clearly wrong. The old memory must be playing tricks on me. Regardless, he was good enough to come with a few yards of it, and that has to count for something.

 

[Godsbrother]

Wow.First, I don't see how so many people can knock Franco. He was a huge part of the Steelers' success in the 70's and regarded as one of the best RB's of his time.Same for Hornung; you've got to be kidding.I'll admit that I didn't really start watching football religiously until about '82, so I didn't really watch much of any of these guys in their heyday. But I do consider myself somewhat of an NFL historian (i.e. NFL Films junkie) and I don't think that stats tell the whole story.

Stats never tell the whole story and people put way too much stock into numbers. Anyone that watched the Steelers in the 1970s knows how important Franco was to those teams. The Steelers never won anything before Franco -- the success in the 70s started in Franco's rookie year. He was a 9-time pro bowler, all-pro 1 year, 4 time Super Bowl winner, 1 time SB MVP and #2 in all time rushing yards when he retired. He also was the integral part in the most famous play in NFL history.If all that doesn't warrant the HoF then they should tear the place down.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Same for Hornung; you've got to be kidding.

Anything more to add? There were lots of great players from the '40s, '50s and '60s. I don't see how Hornung is in that group.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Wow.First, I don't see how so many people can knock Franco. He was a huge part of the Steelers' success in the 70's and regarded as one of the best RB's of his time.Same for Hornung; you've got to be kidding.I'll admit that I didn't really start watching football religiously until about '82, so I didn't really watch much of any of these guys in their heyday. But I do consider myself somewhat of an NFL historian (i.e. NFL Films junkie) and I don't think that stats tell the whole story.

Stats never tell the whole story and people put way too much stock into numbers. Anyone that watched the Steelers in the 1970s knows how important Franco was to those teams. The Steelers never won anything before Franco -- the success in the 70s started in Franco's rookie year. He was a 9-time pro bowler, all-pro 1 year, 4 time Super Bowl winner, 1 time SB MVP and #2 in all time rushing yards when he retired. He also was the integral part in the most famous play in NFL history.If all that doesn't warrant the HoF then they should tear the place down.

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have always maintained that that the HOF is about more than numbers, it is about telling th estory of Football. Sayers was a great back who's impact was shortened by injury, but his impact went beyond mere numbers. His story, his intertwinement with the story of Brian Piccolo, his import on integration of the game is an essential story. The grace and class he demonstrated was transcendant. that is why he is in the HOF. Hornung is another. His story is a good one. His impact went beyond numbers. His story is entwined with the Story of Lombardi and involves the resurrection of a once great yet moribund franchise. His is, in many ways, the Story of Broadway Joe, but before Broadway Joe, and played out in the smallest market around. Also, he was better at his position than Namath was at his.Numbers are so effected by era, number of games played in season in ers, style of play and rules, changes in medical care that one cannot fairly look only to numbers. If one does they miss the import of players to their team and to the game.In this regard how is Jerry Kramer not in the HOF. This was a great player, instumental in all the Packers accomplished in the 60's, and through his retelling of those stories in his books an ongoing credit to the game. He has also been highly instrumental in advocating for the players of his era with the current union. The key to the Packer sweep, the man who carried Lombardi off the field in the Superbowl, the man who carried Lomardi to his grave and who has conducted himself with great class after the game giving greater credit to the game should be in the HOF.

Thanks, DW.The '60s Packers have 9 HOFers plus Hornung and Jerry Kramer. Do they really need 11? I'd certainly argue for Kramer before Hornung.While numbers are a product of era and games played and many other things, Hornung didn't stand out among his contemporaries, either.

 

[zed2283]

Wow.First, I don't see how so many people can knock Franco. He was a huge part of the Steelers' success in the 70's and regarded as one of the best RB's of his time.Same for Hornung; you've got to be kidding.I'll admit that I didn't really start watching football religiously until about '82, so I didn't really watch much of any of these guys in their heyday. But I do consider myself somewhat of an NFL historian (i.e. NFL Films junkie) and I don't think that stats tell the whole story.

Stats never tell the whole story and people put way too much stock into numbers. Anyone that watched the Steelers in the 1970s knows how important Franco was to those teams. The Steelers never won anything before Franco -- the success in the 70s started in Franco's rookie year. He was a 9-time pro bowler, all-pro 1 year, 4 time Super Bowl winner, 1 time SB MVP and #2 in all time rushing yards when he retired. He also was the integral part in the most famous play in NFL history.If all that doesn't warrant the HoF then they should tear the place down.

 

[Hov34]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

 

[Godsbrother]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

 

[Godsbrother]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

I watched pretty much every game Franco ever played. In his heyday he was one of the top backs in the NFL and was a big part of what made the 70s Steelers teams great and his accomplishments speak for themselves.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

I agree that he deserves to be in the HOF. That said, you can't really take offense to someone saying he's in the bottom three or four of the modern HOF RBs. You can argue him being ahead of Csonka and Riggins, but I don't think he's got much of an argument over anyone else (maybe Dorsett). That said, I'd like to hear his argument over those two guys.

 

[moondog]

Harris was not great, he stayed healthy and played on a great team.

Like Emmitt Smith

 

[Godsbrother]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

I agree that he deserves to be in the HOF. That said, you can't really take offense to someone saying he's in the bottom three or four of the modern HOF RBs. You can argue him being ahead of Csonka and Riggins, but I don't think he's got much of an argument over anyone else (maybe Dorsett). That said, I'd like to hear his argument over those two guys.

I am not really arguing that he is better than all of those guys but of those listed only Barry Sanders had been named to more Pro Bowls than Harris so he was obviously regarded as one of the top backs in the AFC for a very long period by coaches and players (fans didn't vote during Harris' career).

 

[Tenacious D]

Harris never met a sideline he didn't like. He had some talent, but he is one guy on that team who was carried in by the team, not helping carry the team. The team didn't miss a beat when Rocky or Frency, or Sidney Thornton later, carried the ball. That line was so good and juiced even a 30 yo Rocky got 1K behind it. All three had a better career ypc than Frano barely breaking 4.0. Franco rolled up some TDs, but his rushing was consistent, not spectacular...never more than 1200 yards, I believe.

He s/b viewed as the Art Monk of RBs when it came to the Hall of Fame, but gets in w/o much scrutiny like a lot of Steelers from those teams did.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let me just add a couple of notes about Hornung. As I said before, he only had three seasons of note, '59-'61.

In 1959, in a 12 team NFL, he ranked 8th in the league in rushing yards.

In 1960, in a 13 team NFL, he ranked 7th in the league in rushing yards.

In 1961, in a 14 team NFL, he ranked 13th in the league in rushing yards.

In terms of total TDs, he ranked 7t-1-6t.

There have been many great pre-merger RBs. For example, Hornung's teammate Jim Taylor is one of the greatest runners in NFL history. Jim Brown *is* the greatest RB in NFL history. Joe Perry and Steve Van Buren were dominant runners that led the league in rushing a combined seven times. Lenny Moore and Marion Motley had the ability to star in today's game. Abner Haynes was very good for the Chiefs in the AFL. Cliff Battles was the first star since the game began recording individual statistics in 1932. Dan Towler had a short but dominant career for the Rams in the early '50s. Same for Eddie Price and the Giants. Frank Gifford was a worthy jack of all trades HOFer. J.D. Smith played the same years as Hornung and had much better production. I'm not even going to claim AFLers like Billy Cannon and Paul Lowe. Rick Casares was a big time power runner for the Bears in the late '50s.

There were tons of good, but forgotten, RBs. I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something about Hornung -- but it's funny that many of the glowing things you hear about Hornung are how many points he scored in this season or that game. Too bad many of those points came as a kicker.

 

[wildbill]

I was a huge Riggins fan when he was with the Skins, but I'd put him at the bottom of this list, and I don't think he should be in the Hall. He was an average running back until his last few seasons.

I'd put Terrell Davis in before Riggins. TD's peak was higher and longer than Riggins', and if he had been able to continue playing I'd expect his later years would have been more productive than Riggins' early years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

I agree that he deserves to be in the HOF. That said, you can't really take offense to someone saying he's in the bottom three or four of the modern HOF RBs. You can argue him being ahead of Csonka and Riggins, but I don't think he's got much of an argument over anyone else (maybe Dorsett). That said, I'd like to hear his argument over those two guys.

I am not really arguing that he is better than all of those guys but of those listed only Barry Sanders had been named to more Pro Bowls than Harris so he was obviously regarded as one of the top backs in the AFC for a very long period by coaches and players (fans didn't vote during Harris' career).

I don't like looking at Pro Bowls for QBs, RBs or WRs because we actually have better indicators than that.How meaningful is a meaningless Pro Bowl berth? In 1973, he was the 4th RB in the AFC and was no better than half the other starting RBs in the AFC. 1980 was another obvious undeserved berth.Harris made the Pro Bowl a bunch of times because voters don't care about fumbles and his team won lots of games. I think he's a deserving HOFer because of his tremendous post-season success and his sustained run of good performances. But the lack of any dominant season and only one top three finish in rushing yards in a season means he's not the RB that most of the modern HOFers are. It's not a knock, though, to say he's not Emmitt Smith or Walter Payton or Earl Campbell. He's an all time great, and should be remembered as one.

 

[FlapJacks]

Csonka is in for the same reasons Namath is in - he had a persona that transcended the game. It is hard to tell the history of the early 70's NFL without mentioning the word Csonka.

That said, I voted him to be out

 

[zed2283]

I don't like looking at Pro Bowls for QBs, RBs or WRs because we actually have better indicators than that.How meaningful is a meaningless Pro Bowl berth? In 1973, he was the 4th RB in the AFC and was no better than half the other starting RBs in the AFC. 1980 was another obvious undeserved berth.Harris made the Pro Bowl a bunch of times because voters don't care about fumbles and his team won lots of games. I think he's a deserving HOFer because of his tremendous post-season success and his sustained run of good performances. But the lack of any dominant season and only one top three finish in rushing yards in a season means he's not the RB that most of the modern HOFers are. It's not a knock, though, to say he's not Emmitt Smith or Walter Payton or Earl Campbell. He's an all time great, and should be remembered as one.

Well maybe that's where I was getting mixed up. I agree you probably have to rank him in the lower part of that list, but there's no question in my mind that he should be in the Hall.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Csonka is in for the same reasons Namath is in - he had a persona that transcended the game. It is hard to tell the history of the early 70's NFL without mentioning the word Csonka.That said, I voted him to be out

I kind of agree, although Namath put up much better peak numbers than Csonka ever did.One reason I'm inclined to give Csonka a pass is because he left for the WFL in the middle of his career. Had he stayed, maybe his numbers would look a bit better (although I doubt by much).

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I have always maintained that that the HOF is about more than numbers, it is about telling th estory of Football. Sayers was a great back who's impact was shortened by injury, but his impact went beyond mere numbers. His story, his intertwinement with the story of Brian Piccolo, his import on integration of the game is an essential story. The grace and class he demonstrated was transcendant. that is why he is in the HOF. Hornung is another. His story is a good one. His impact went beyond numbers. His story is entwined with the Story of Lombardi and involves the resurrection of a once great yet moribund franchise. His is, in many ways, the Story of Broadway Joe, but before Broadway Joe, and played out in the smallest market around. Also, he was better at his position than Namath was at his.Numbers are so effected by era, number of games played in season in ers, style of play and rules, changes in medical care that one cannot fairly look only to numbers. If one does they miss the import of players to their team and to the game.In this regard how is Jerry Kramer not in the HOF. This was a great player, instumental in all the Packers accomplished in the 60's, and through his retelling of those stories in his books an ongoing credit to the game. He has also been highly instrumental in advocating for the players of his era with the current union. The key to the Packer sweep, the man who carried Lombardi off the field in the Superbowl, the man who carried Lomardi to his grave and who has conducted himself with great class after the game giving greater credit to the game should be in the HOF.

Thanks, DW.The '60s Packers have 9 HOFers plus Hornung and Jerry Kramer. Do they really need 11? I'd certainly argue for Kramer before Hornung.While numbers are a product of era and games played and many other things, Hornung didn't stand out among his contemporaries, either.

I thought he did to the extent that he had one, maybe two MVP awards. He was a devastatingly sure power runner who would get you your short yardage first down or your touchdown. He had a real knack for leading Taylor, and was a very sure-handed reciever. That said, he was no John Brockington, who BTW was a much better power back than Csonka, just with a shortened career due to knee injury.

 

[beto]

The poll wouldn't allow "no choice" for the bottom section. So I voted for all of them.

 

[C & C]

Harris never met a sideline he didn't like. He had some talent, but he is one guy on that team who was carried in by the team, not helping carry the team. The team didn't miss a beat when Rocky or Frency, or Sidney Thornton later, carried the ball. That line was so good and juiced even a 30 yo Rocky got 1K behind it. All three had a better career ypc than Frano barely breaking 4.0. Franco rolled up some TDs, but his rushing was consistent, not spectacular...never more than 1200 yards, I believe.

He s/b viewed as the Art Monk of RBs when it came to the Hall of Fame, but gets in w/o much scrutiny like a lot of Steelers from those teams did.

Not so sure about the bolded part. The 1976 Steeler team was arguably their best team ever. Lost to Oak 24-7 in the playoffs without Franco and Rocky. To be fair, this is the year Rocky got his 1000 yards and had a significantly higher yards per carry.As for the topic at hand, I think they all deserve to be there. When forced to pick one I went with Csonka.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Let me just add a couple of notes about Hornung. As I said before, he only had three seasons of note, '59-'61.In 1959, in a 12 team NFL, he ranked 8th in the league in rushing yards.In 1960, in a 13 team NFL, he ranked 7th in the league in rushing yards.In 1961, in a 14 team NFL, he ranked 13th in the league in rushing yards.In terms of total TDs, he ranked 7t-1-6t.There have been many great pre-merger RBs. For example, Hornung's teammate Jim Taylor is one of the greatest runners in NFL history. Jim Brown *is* the greatest RB in NFL history. Joe Perry and Steve Van Buren were dominant runners that led the league in rushing a combined seven times. Lenny Moore and Marion Motley had the ability to star in today's game. Abner Haynes was very good for the Chiefs in the AFL. Cliff Battles was the first star since the game began recording individual statistics in 1932. Dan Towler had a short but dominant career for the Rams in the early '50s. Same for Eddie Price and the Giants. Frank Gifford was a worthy jack of all trades HOFer. J.D. Smith played the same years as Hornung and had much better production. I'm not even going to claim AFLers like Billy Cannon and Paul Lowe. Rick Casares was a big time power runner for the Bears in the late '50s.There were tons of good, but forgotten, RBs. I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something about Hornung -- but it's funny that many of the glowing things you hear about Hornung are how many points he scored in this season or that game. Too bad many of those points came as a kicker.

Given he lead for Jimmy Taylor his opportunities were going to be limited. That said, I have no doubt that he benefited in his vote from having been a very affable fellow who had entertained many of the voters during his days. I agree, even being an ardent fan, that he is a very questionable inductee. He definitely benefited from being on the Packers and from big game performances. In many ways he is Swann or Namath, he performed memorably when he had the big stage. If they were ever to start bumping players he would be one to consider.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have always maintained that that the HOF is about more than numbers, it is about telling th estory of Football. Sayers was a great back who's impact was shortened by injury, but his impact went beyond mere numbers. His story, his intertwinement with the story of Brian Piccolo, his import on integration of the game is an essential story. The grace and class he demonstrated was transcendant. that is why he is in the HOF. Hornung is another. His story is a good one. His impact went beyond numbers. His story is entwined with the Story of Lombardi and involves the resurrection of a once great yet moribund franchise. His is, in many ways, the Story of Broadway Joe, but before Broadway Joe, and played out in the smallest market around. Also, he was better at his position than Namath was at his.Numbers are so effected by era, number of games played in season in ers, style of play and rules, changes in medical care that one cannot fairly look only to numbers. If one does they miss the import of players to their team and to the game.In this regard how is Jerry Kramer not in the HOF. This was a great player, instumental in all the Packers accomplished in the 60's, and through his retelling of those stories in his books an ongoing credit to the game. He has also been highly instrumental in advocating for the players of his era with the current union. The key to the Packer sweep, the man who carried Lombardi off the field in the Superbowl, the man who carried Lomardi to his grave and who has conducted himself with great class after the game giving greater credit to the game should be in the HOF.

Thanks, DW.The '60s Packers have 9 HOFers plus Hornung and Jerry Kramer. Do they really need 11? I'd certainly argue for Kramer before Hornung.While numbers are a product of era and games played and many other things, Hornung didn't stand out among his contemporaries, either.

I thought he did to the extent that he had one, maybe two MVP awards. He was a devastatingly sure power runner who would get you your short yardage first down or your touchdown. He had a real knack for leading Taylor, and was a very sure-handed reciever. That said, he was no John Brockington, who BTW was a much better power back than Csonka, just with a shortened career due to knee injury.

Taylor won some sort of MVP in 1960, although the AP did not give an award that year. The one he won in '61 looks absurd; in both years, Taylor and Brown were so much better (and that's just two RBs, not to name several other RBs and QBs) that it looks like a farce.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Given he lead for Jimmy Taylor his opportunities were going to be limited.

Do you think Taylor was better?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Given he lead for Jimmy Taylor his opportunities were going to be limited.

Do you think Taylor was better?

I dne can also argue against each to the extent that they had some great blocking, for the time an effective passing game, and a defense that kept giving them the ball. More or less the knock against Emmitt Smith.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Given he lead for Jimmy Taylor his opportunities were going to be limited.

Do you think Taylor was better?

I dne can also argue against each to the extent that they had some great blocking, for the time an effective passing game, and a defense that kept giving them the ball. More or less the knock against Emmitt Smith.

For sure. I view Taylor as pretty much an all time great (and if not for Jim Brown, might be considered in the GOAT discussion). I think Hornung's massively overrated because he went to Notre Dame and kicked extra points.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I have always maintained that that the HOF is about more than numbers, it is about telling th estory of Football. Sayers was a great back who's impact was shortened by injury, but his impact went beyond mere numbers. His story, his intertwinement with the story of Brian Piccolo, his import on integration of the game is an essential story. The grace and class he demonstrated was transcendant. that is why he is in the HOF. Hornung is another. His story is a good one. His impact went beyond numbers. His story is entwined with the Story of Lombardi and involves the resurrection of a once great yet moribund franchise. His is, in many ways, the Story of Broadway Joe, but before Broadway Joe, and played out in the smallest market around. Also, he was better at his position than Namath was at his.Numbers are so effected by era, number of games played in season in ers, style of play and rules, changes in medical care that one cannot fairly look only to numbers. If one does they miss the import of players to their team and to the game.In this regard how is Jerry Kramer not in the HOF. This was a great player, instumental in all the Packers accomplished in the 60's, and through his retelling of those stories in his books an ongoing credit to the game. He has also been highly instrumental in advocating for the players of his era with the current union. The key to the Packer sweep, the man who carried Lombardi off the field in the Superbowl, the man who carried Lomardi to his grave and who has conducted himself with great class after the game giving greater credit to the game should be in the HOF.

Thanks, DW.The '60s Packers have 9 HOFers plus Hornung and Jerry Kramer. Do they really need 11? I'd certainly argue for Kramer before Hornung.While numbers are a product of era and games played and many other things, Hornung didn't stand out among his contemporaries, either.

I thought he did to the extent that he had one, maybe two MVP awards. He was a devastatingly sure power runner who would get you your short yardage first down or your touchdown. He had a real knack for leading Taylor, and was a very sure-handed reciever. That said, he was no John Brockington, who BTW was a much better power back than Csonka, just with a shortened career due to knee injury.

Taylor won some sort of MVP in 1960, although the AP did not give an award that year. The one he won in '61 looks absurd; in both years, Taylor and Brown were so much better (and that's just two RBs, not to name several other RBs and QBs) that it looks like a farce.

You have to factor in how limited rosters were in those days. Your stars had to be effective special teamers, there was no room on the roster for specialists. Often they were backups as well having an emergency two way function. It was a whole different game.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Given he lead for Jimmy Taylor his opportunities were going to be limited.

Do you think Taylor was better?

I dne can also argue against each to the extent that they had some great blocking, for the time an effective passing game, and a defense that kept giving them the ball. More or less the knock against Emmitt Smith.

For sure. I view Taylor as pretty much an all time great (and if not for Jim Brown, might be considered in the GOAT discussion). I think Hornung's massively overrated because he went to Notre Dame and kicked extra points.

I too believe he benefited from being a Notre Dame player, as well as being immensely popular with his peers and the press. Still, the Packers, having Jimmy Taylor, a great back in his prime, went to Hornung for the hard yards which says something. also, his ability to sublimate himself to his team was appreciated in his era. This was a Golden boy who might have been a Q.B. or a halfback in the league who choose to become a fullback, a lead blocker, and a special teamer for the good of his team. That was appreciated back in the day. No question though, even as an ardent Packer fan I don't find your questioning offensive and i understand he will always be seen as an "on the cusp" kind of guy.BTW if you ever find tape of John Brokington you should watch that guy. The original high knee action beast. Earl Campbell definitely modeled some of his game after him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You have to factor in how limited rosters were in those days. Your stars had to be effective special teamers, there was no room on the roster for specialists. Often they were backups as well having an emergency two way function. It was a whole different game.

True, but there's only one special teamer in the HOF. Sure, utility is very valuable, but lots of players were on special teams back then (as you indicated).

 

[Chase Stuart]

BTW if you ever find tape of John Brokington you should watch that guy. The original high knee action beast. Earl Campbell definitely modeled some of his game after him.

Agreed. Brockington was one of the very top RBs in the league from '71 to '73. What do you think about Riggins/Franco/Csonka?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

BTW if you ever find tape of John Brokington you should watch that guy. The original high knee action beast. Earl Campbell definitely modeled some of his game after him.

Agreed. Brockington was one of the very top RBs in the league from '71 to '73. What do you think about Riggins/Franco/Csonka?

I always thought Harris was a little soft. Csonka is an interesting case, did he benefit because defenses had to respect the option of Greise to Warfield and the option of Mercury Morris and Jim Kiick, or did he loose carries and sublimate himself? He was a pile mover, and I respect that ability. Riggins I grew to grudginly repect. I would rank them Riggins, Csonka then Harris, knowing I will incur the wrath of Steeler fans.Chuck Foreman was an amazing combination of speed, power, and moves. As a Packer Fan I could not wait for him to retire. He was like Bo Jackson or Eric Dickerson in that he could both outrun you or kick your ###. He also had some amazingly effective spin noves and the balance to recover from them and get going again. What a beast.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Dorsett had great speed, but if you blew on him he'd go down.

 

[Raider Nation]

Voted Csonka in both, but I wouldn't tell him to his face.

 

[Jous]

Marcus Allen clearly does not deserve his spot in Canton. He had a couple great years, then hung around and gave average performances for a bunch of years.

 

[Tau837]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

Look, I agree Harris should be in the HOF. But I think you are very wrong to say he accomplished more in his career than Walter Payton. The only thing you could cite is the rings, but I think the number of HOFers Harris played with were more responsible for that than Harris was. Payton didn't have the privilege of playing with a team loaded with HOF talent.

 

[Tau837]

To have included Sayers in this poll is ridiculous, and IMO whoever voted/votes for him is pretty ignorant.

 

[moleculo]

Tony Dorsett is the toughest one to justify HOFyness.

 

[Barry]

The op should have watched more football instead of reading about it.

 

[Balance]

Marcus Allen = Emmitt Smith - play 5 years past your relevance for no reason beyond stats.

Both = HIGHLY overrated.

 

[Godsbrother]

Do you think Harris is better than half of the following guys:Campbell, Dickerson, Dorsett, Harris, Kelly, Payton, Riggins, Sanders, Sayers, Simpson and Thurman Thomas?

Not all but he accomplished more over his career than any of those guys. None of those guys were more important to their team than Harris was to the 1970 Steelers, a team that dominated a decade with great defense and a running attack in which he led.He deserves to be in the HoF.

Look, I agree Harris should be in the HOF. But I think you are very wrong to say he accomplished more in his career than Walter Payton. The only thing you could cite is the rings, but I think the number of HOFers Harris played with were more responsible for that than Harris was. Payton didn't have the privilege of playing with a team loaded with HOF talent.

I never said that Harris was a better RB than Walter Payton. Payton was a tremendous back and he played on some crappy teams over the course of his career as did Barry Sanders. However the ultimate accomplishment for a player is to make the playoffs and win championships. In that sense Harris accomplished more. That is all I was saying.As a longtime Steelers fan I can't tell you how much I have heard that Bradshaw, Harris, Swann, Stallworth, Dwight White, Greenwood, Shell, etc. were just marginal players and just fortunate to be surrounded by so much talent. You hear that about Chuck Noll too -- he wasn't a great coach just lucky to have all that talent.Well if all of these guys were just average then I would like to know who besides Greene, Lambert and Ham had the talent. The guys above weren't role players -- they were major contributors on one of the most dominant team in NFL history. I am not sure why people don't want to give them credit for their accomplishments.